Mainray Nominees Pty Ltd v Stoate - [2025] WASC 145 (S)

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION:   MAINRAY NOMINEES PTY LTD -v- STOATE [2025] WASC 145 (S)
CORAM:   GETHING J
HEARD:   ON THE PAPERS
DELIVERED          :   23 MAY 2025
FILE NO/S:   TRU 13 of 2024
BETWEEN:   MAINRAY NOMINEES PTY LTD
Plaintiff
AND
KATJA ELIZABETH STOATE
NEVE JENNIFER CAMPION
MANON YVONNE STOATE
JACK EDWARD CAMPION
BRONTE ELIZABETH CAMPION
First Defendants
JONATHON MICHAEL STOATE
MEREDITH NANCY CAMPION
Second Defendants

Catchwords:

Trusts - Trustees - Judicial advice - s 92 Trustees Act 1962 (WA) - Advice given - Whether beneficiary who initially opposed the orders sought is entitled to their costs from trust funds

Legislation:

Trustees Act 1962 (WA) s 92

Result:

Costs issues reserved to trial judge in CIV 1961 of 2024

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	Mr M M Cuerden SC with Mr M Keating
First Defendants	:	Mr S Penglis SC with Mr N Gentilli
Second Defendants	:	Mr S Penglis SC with Mr N Gentilli

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Pragma Lawyers
First Defendants	:	Jackson McDonald
Second Defendants	:	Jackson McDonald

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Application of Macedonian Orthodox Community Church St Petka Incorporated (No 4) [2007] NSWSC 254
Blatchford v Laine [2018] WASC 207
Buckton v Buckton [1907] 2 Ch 406
Campbell v Glasgow (1919) 27 CLR 31
Elders Trustee & Executor Co Ltd v Eastoe [1963] WAR 36
Hiddlestone Electrics Pty Ltd v Civic Legal Pty Ltd [2025] WASC 172
Hughes v St Barbara Ltd [2011] WASCA 234 (S)
In re Halston [1912] 1 Ch 435
Kalx Capital Securities Pty Ltd v Richardson 1 Pty Ltd [No 2] [2021] WASC 302 (S)
Latoudis v Casey (1990) 170 CLR 534
Macedonian Orthodox Community Church St Petka Inc v His Eminence Petar The Diocesan Bishop of The Macedonian Orthodox Diocese of Australia and New Zealand [2008] HCA 42; (2008) 237 CLR 66
Mainray Nominees Pty Ltd v Stoate [2025] WASC 145
Manton Enterprises Pty Ltd as trustee for GPK No 2 Trust v Lt Market St Pty Ltd [2021] WASC 4 (S)
Marley v Mutual Security Merchant Bank (1991) 3 All ER 198
Myra Pty Ltd v Thompson [2011] WASC 230 (S)
Northern Territory v Sangare [2019] HCA 25; (2019) 265 CLR 164
Porteous v Rinehart [1998] WASC 270; 19 WAR 495
Re Grose (1949) SASR 55
Re Mary Donal Nominees Pty Ltd as trustee for the D J MacCormick Family Trust; ex parte Mary Donald Nominees Pty Ltd as trustee for the DJ MacCormick Family Trust [No 2] [2024] WASC 284
Strzelecki Holdings Pty Ltd v Jorgensen [2019] WASCA 96
Tsaknis as Executor and Trustee of the Estate of Geoffrey Douglas Roland Lilburne (Dec) v Lilburne [2010] WASC 152
Wright v Lemon [2024] WASCA 19

GETHING J:

Introduction

In a decision published as Mainray Nominees Pty Ltd v Stoate[1] (Primary Decision) I provided judicial guidance to Mainray Pty Ltd (Mainray) in its capacity as trustee of the Talgarno Trust (Trust). Some costs issues…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Mainray Nominees Pty Ltd v Stoate and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] WASC 145 (S)
Decision Date: 23 MAY 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Mainray Nominees Pty Ltd v Stoate, the Court of Appeal considered the matter of whether a beneficiary who initially opposed certain orders was entitled to their costs from trust funds. The dispute arose from the administration of a trust by Mainray Nominees Pty Ltd, with Stoate acting as one of the trustees. The beneficiary, who had opposed the orders, later sought to have their legal costs covered by the trust funds.

The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of section 92 of the Trustees Act 1962 (WA), which pertains to the giving of advice by a judicial officer to trustees. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the beneficiary was entitled to costs from the trust under this section. The court also examined whether the beneficiary's initial opposition to the orders could affect their entitlement to such costs.

In its reasoning, the court held that a beneficiary who opposes orders and subsequently seeks costs from the trust must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. The court noted that section 92 does not automatically entitle a beneficiary to costs from the trust, regardless of their stance on the orders. The court emphasised the importance of the beneficiary's conduct and the nature of the advice given. Ultimately, the court found that the beneficiary was not entitled to their costs from the trust funds, as their initial opposition and the specific circumstances of the case did not warrant such an entitlement under section 92 of the Act.

The court's decision clarified the conditions under which a beneficiary may seek costs from trust funds and reinforced the principle that each case must be considered individually. The orders of the court confirmed that the beneficiary was not entitled to their costs from the trust funds.

Orders